On 8/14/2014 11:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
: brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
: available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
: a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
: the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
: Has anyone else had that experience?
:
: TIA
:
: No help; just a kvetch.
:
: I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into
: the "cloud".

You don't? Seriously? You must be either blind, deaf, or not a resident of the
United States. The answer is Capitalist GREED. Nothing more, nothing less.

that's right! everything should be free!

: Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only makes sense to put
: things online if you need to access them elsewhere.

Wait until you have to rent HDs instead of buying them. I'm old enough to
remember when IBM had a hammer lock on computer equipment, and you had to rent
EVERYTHING. The Government eventually quashed that, but that was before the
Era of the Republican Party. Back we're going to go, and probably at
breathtaking speed.

nobody is renting hard drives.

putting stuff in the cloud offers a service for which the provider is
entitled to compensation.

many cloud services offer a free tier with paid additional capacity. if
you don't need cloud access, don't subscribe. very simple.

and that's just storage. there's more to the cloud than storage.

: Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
: business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
: but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
: software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
: say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
: the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
: connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall
: but not interrupt use during a network outage.)

Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription
model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're
headed.

nonsense, but even if that were true, so what?

Agreed.


is there something wrong with targeting the top tier? do you have a
problem with rolls royce and ferrari making very expensive cars?


That is not the point. The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for. When the
vendor fails to disclose that a promotional price withholds part of the
product, is, IMHO unethical, if possiby illegal in some places. It's
called false and misleading advertixing.

--
PeterN